A brief response by our author to this NY Times Op-Ed piece:
“Graduate education in the humanities may have its problems, but don’t try to tar science with the same brush.”
“The humanities aren’t sciences, they don’t solve problems like sciences, and they shouldn’t try to be sciences.”
Is the public lens currently being focused on the problem in a way that does justice to neither the humanities nor the sciences? There has been some successful modeling of some scientific rigor in the past.
There are still a few rigorous teachers of the canon, but they’ve often been replaced by a more fractured group of interests, continental leftists, and semi-politicized groups in many a liberal arts program (and it’s important as ever as a discipline in my opinion). I think this helps explain the corner some people in our culture have painted themselves into; clutching at the remnants of moral relativism with an all too earnest scientism (the people who need climate science to be true for various reasons other than scientific ones), multi-culturalism and a sadly politicized set of goals for higher ed. Clearly, there’s been a lot of change, and little discussion of the reasons behind the change.
On This Site: From Bloggingheads: Shakespeare and The Second Law Of Thermodynamics…Stanley Fish At The NY Times Blog: ‘The Last Professors: The Corporate Professors And The Fate Of The Humanities’…From The Harvard Educational Review-A Review Of Martha Nussbaum’s ‘Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education.’,,
Did Strauss have it entirely right? Harry Jaffa At The Claremont Institute: ‘Leo Strauss, the Bible, and Political Philosophy’…Some Tuesday Quotations From Leo Strauss…